College and Career Readiness is Key

For many employers and employees, 2013 has been their best year ever.  And yet, we have others still struggling to get out of the hole of the Great Recession.  Unemployment is down but far too many cannot find work due to the mismatch of their skills and the job requirements.  The acceleration of automation and technology replacing human capital is clear.  If it is possible for a machine to do a job, then those doing that job will lose it to a machine.  And this applies to jobs beyond manufacturing, such as management, retail, services, etc.  The future of work relies on being well-trained and educated with skills matching those of the jobs being generated.  In the North Bay, attracting and retaining skilled employees is the order of the day since we are at risk.  Why?  Because companies now go where the talent is.  All of us need to ensure that the talent is here at home so we can be economically competitive, foster innovation and sustain our economic growth.  As more Baby Boomers retire, the talent shortage will increase.  NBLC is partnering on improving college and career readiness and using collective impact to achieve our goals.  We look forward to working together to develop homegrown talent in the North Bay.  Our future depends on it!

NBLC Calls for Lucas Cultural Arts Museum to be Selected by the Presidio Trust

NBLC supports the Lucas Cultural Arts Museum, proposed by George Lucas, to be the choice of the Presidio Trust.  The Museum is one of the three finalists for the former commissary site at the Presidio.  Mr. Lucas’ proposal includes building a $250 million Beaux-Arts-style museum that would house his $1 billion personal collection of artworks.  The proposed 93,000 square foot museum, designed by the Urban Design Group, would have five galleries filled with Lucas’ collection, including a permanent collection, traveling exhibitions from around the world and one room dedicated to cutting edge digital arts.  The building would house a theater, lecture hall, café and gift shop.  The proposal comes with a pledge of $700 million of Mr. Lucas’ own money and has been endorsed by Mayor Ed Lee.

The two competitors offer no funding nor do they have anywhere near the same level of public adoration as does Mr. Lucas and his films, notably the Star Wars Triology.  The second proposal, according to the San Francisco Business Times, is “The Bridge/Sustainability Institute from WRNS Studio and the Chora group, they would build an interactive research center for sustainable practices that would resemble a sort of modern science fair.  The last proposal is by the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy to build a ‘cultural center’ that offers cooking classes, film festivals, interactive art installations, as well as educational workshops and youth summits.”

The Lucas Cultural Arts Museum will be one of the most beautiful buildings in San Francisco and the building and the art it contains will create a magnet for visitors from around the world.  As George Lucas has graced the Bay Area with his presence and creativity for decades, bucking the trend to locate his company in southern California, it would be a travesty for his museum to not be located in San Francisco.

The decision by the Presidio Trust about which proposal to select is drawing near. Please join NBLC and other supporters in endorsing the project and advocating on its behalf to the Presidio Trust.  The Trust is taking public comments now on their website and will hold a public hearing on October 24 with the goal of selecting the final bidder by November.

It’s Time to Support Small Business Growth

The backbone of the California economy is small business.  In the North Bay the majority of companies are small, with six or less employees. These are the companies that start here, grow here and usually stay here.  Our Secretary of State, in charge of processing business filings is woefully behind in doing her job.  It currently takes the Secretary of State’s office over 60 calendar days and 43 business days to process the paperwork required for a business to open.  The state’s inability to process the filings in a timely manner, which has been going on for years, sends all the wrong messages to business.

The Legislature, awakening to the need for action, has rightfully passed a bill to add $2 million to the Secretary of State’s budget to cut down the length of delay.  And Assemblymember Tom Daly, has introduced a bill to set a new standard so that by November 2013, business filings must be processed in no more than 5 business days.  Let’s hope that the new Democratic super-majority continues, as Speaker John Perez says, “to take other actions to make California a more attractive place for businesses to invest and expand.”  If the Legislature can work with business more productively, we will all benefit.

The Time is Right to Modernize the California Environmental Quality Act

Most people would agree that if a school, hospital or road project had done extensive environmental review and met all state and local environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act, that the project should be allowed to go forward without being sued for purported environmental reasons. Unfortunately, today in California, these types of projects are being delayed and facing increased costs – many times to taxpayers – or killed altogether because of abusive litigation that frequently has nothing to do with the environment.

For the past 40 years, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has served as a vital tool to protect our environment by ensuring that all proposed local development projects undergo a rigorous environmental review process and that the impacts of new projects on the environment are adequately mitigated.

However, like most tools that are 40-years old, today’s CEQA needs to be modernized to ensure that this policy is working in tandem with the myriad of other environmental laws and regulations that have been added since its inception.

North Bay Leadership Council (NBLC) is part of a broad coalition representing business, labor, schools, hospitals, clean tech, transit, affordable housing and other organizations that are pushing for moderate reforms to CEQA that will preserve its original intent – environmental protection and public disclosure – while eliminating some of the misuses of CEQA that hurt job creation, community renewal and our environment.

In the 40 years since CEQA was passed, Congress and the Legislature have adopted more than 120 laws to protect the environment including air quality, water quality, species protection, greenhouse gas reduction, responsible land-use planning and more.  However, CEQA has not received a major update in that time to take these new laws into account. As a result, many environmentally desirable projects are being held-up by abusive CEQA lawsuits – even when a project complies with all of California’s other toughest-in-the-nation environmental laws and standards.

Compliance with California’s stringent environmental standards should mean something, but instead, today in California, CEQA is being abused to stop projects that “play by the rules” and comply with all applicable standards—many times causing delays and increased taxpayer costs and sometimes even killing good projects altogether.

In fact, according to a recent analysis by the Thomas Law Group, even when a project undergoes an extensive and costly full-blown Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the project is rejected 50% of the time when a court challenge is brought under CEQA.  No public or private business can adequately plan with 50/50 chance of being stopped by a lawsuit – an effective coin toss when millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars and jobs are on the line.

Too often, CEQA lawsuits and the mere threat of litigation harm the type of local community renewal and environmentally desirable economic growth we need. For instance, Lucasfilm’s Grady Ranch project, was pulled by the proponent due to the threat of a CEQA challenge, costing Marin County hundreds of well-paying jobs and other economic benefits.

To stop this misuse, our coalition is pushing for an update of CEQA that will modernize CEQA.

Under this reform:

  • CEQA would continue to serve as the principle environmental policy to ensure that all projects are meeting federal, state, and local environmental laws, regulations and zoning and planning.
  • CEQA would continue to mandate comprehensive environmental review, disclosure and informed public debate for all environmental impacts of any proposed development.
  • State agencies, local governments and other lead agencies would continue to retain their existing authority to reject projects, or to condition project approvals and impose mitigation measures that go above and beyond the law.
  • When a project has met all required state, federal and local environmental laws, regulations, and planning, zoning and land-use requirements, a CEQA lawsuit cannot be brought to force additional requirements through the courts that go above and beyond what’s been required by the law.
  • Project opponents could still sue or challenge whether lead agencies complied with the procedural requirements of CEQA, and opponents could also sue to ensure projects mitigate significant adverse environmental impacts not subject to local, state or federal laws and regulations.

Stakeholders on all sides agree that, after 40 years, there are important improvements that can be made to CEQA. These reforms must retain the foundation of the law – public disclosure and environmental protection – while limiting misuses of the statute for reasons that have nothing to do with the environment and jeopardize economic growth and environmental leadership.

Preserve the Full Deductibility of State and Local Taxes

Russell Goldsmith’s writes “For the 141 million Americans who live and work in the nine states with the highest state and local taxes, the debate in the fiscal cliff negotiations whether to raise revenue for the federal government by raising tax rates versus limiting tax deductions is an important issue – especially regarding deductions for state and local taxes.

The way to generate more federal tax dollars should not be by limiting the deductibility of state and local taxes.

2012 The Year Of The Big Lie

2012 was a banner year for campaigns of misinformation, which is striking as many say we are living in the Age of Information.  How can people lie so boldly when there are so many ways to check the facts?  Why do so many refuse to believe the truth regardless of the science and evidence presented?

Whether it be political, health-related, science-related (global warming) or a disaster, we have experienced lies that would not quit no matter how often refuted or proven untrue.  There are reasons why people lie from narcissism, self-delusion, egomania, trying to spare others from the “hurt” of the truth, etc.  Politicians are prone to lying says Jim Taylor, Ph.D. in “Six Reasons Why Politicians Believe They Can Lie,” (Psychology Today, September 24, 2012), because, “Ultimately, politicians lie because … the cost/benefit ratio for lying is in their favor.  Politicians run this calculation when they create or shift a damaging narrative, attack an opponent, or respond to indefensible claims against them.  So politicians lie when they believe that dishonesty is the best policy for getting elected.”

In awarding Mitt Romney the award for the “2012 Lie of the Year,” Politifact pointed out in this case, the lie told about Jeep moving jobs to China, may have backfired on Romney.  Politifact said, “A flood of negative press coverage rained down on the Romney campaign, and he failed to turn the tide in Ohio, the most important state in the presidential election.”  The organization also points out how even though Jeep refuted the lie, the lie continued to pick up steam by being turned into a TV ad, which increased the outcry.  The more the pushback, however, the more Romney’s supporters held fast to the lie as it reinforced their world view.

Understanding how the mind works can be helpful in why lying works more often than not, even with the ability to easily check facts.  In “Diss Information:  Is There a Way to Stop Popular Falsehoods from Morphing into ‘Facts’?” by Carrie Arnold (Scientific American, October 4, 2012), she says, “Psychologists call this reaction belief perseverance:  maintaining your original opinions in the face of overwhelming data that contradicts your beliefs.”  Another form of this is known as confirmation bias, where people tend to screen out information that conflicts with their beliefs and believe information that is consistent with their beliefs.  Says Arnold, “Accepting a statement also requires less cognitive effort than rejecting it.  Misinformation is a human problem, not a liberal or conservative one.”

Given the decline in critical thinking coupled with the inundation of data, it is easy to see how discerning the truth is difficult for some.  Throw in the speed at which “news” travels and we can see how minds can be made up before the real facts are known.  If information is currency, let’s hope that people decide in 2013 to try to be more open-minded, not form opinions until the facts are known and embrace that in a fast-paced world, new information is continually developed that might require a different mindset.  Here’s to all of us focusing on building our critical thinking skills so we can be better citizens and community members.

BAY AREA’S ECONOMIC HOMOGENEITY SUGGESTS NEED FOR REGIONAL STRATEGY

While economic development planning done at local levels within the Bay Area is important, it may not be as productive or effective in maximizing growth and job creation as approaching the region as a single economic unit, according to a first-of-its-kind study released this week by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, on which Cynthia Murray, NBLC’s President/CEO, serves on the Executive Committee.

Chief Economist Jon Haveman presented the study at a meeting of the regional Joint Policy Committee. The study, which was funded through a public private partnership that includes North Bay Leadership Council, finds that the Bay Area is highly interconnected economically, with a highly mobile workforce whose decisions about where to live and work may not be at all related to local economic development strategies designed to create jobs or provide housing in a particular community. Indeed, those individual strategies may be at odds with each other. According to the report, “a cooperative and coordinated approach to job creation would take into consideration the benefits to the region as a whole of job creation in a specific location, likely increasing the returns from economic development efforts throughout the entire region.”

The study also addressed the notion that Bay Area job creation has much of anything to do with companies coming here or leaving. What the study finds is that start-up companies are the biggest driver of job growth, accounting for 55 percent of job creation. Expansion by existing companies accounts for 42.6 percent of job creation, while just 2.3 percent of new jobs come from businesses moving into the area. Similarly, companies leaving the Bay Area account for just 3.7 percent of job losses, while the death of existing businesses accounts for 66 percent of job losses. This could be a lesson for those outside the region or California who think there’s much to gain from trying to recruit or lure businesses away.

The study identified high housing costs, a cacophony of state, local and regional business regulations and a shortage of qualified workers as among the biggest obstacles to job growth.

And contrary to some perceptions of growth in the Bay Area, the study finds that the rate of new home construction has slowed to a relative trickle over the past 30 years, a trend that may be the biggest culprit for the region’s high housing costs.

It’s a fascinating examination of the region’s economic dynamics, and concludes with several recommendations that a public private partnership between the business community and regional planning agencies could provide a strong platform for the development of a regional economic strategy. To read the study, visit A Regional Economic Assessment of the San Francisco Bay Area.

NBLC is pleased to have played a leadership role in getting the California Community College Student Success Act of 2012 signed into law!

The California Community College Student Success Act of 2012  has been signed by Governor Brown into law. The Governor’s signature puts student success at community colleges front and center and makes students, the colleges and the state all accountable for that success. This major victory for students, similar to the passage of legislation in 2010, gives us hope that despite this fiscally constrained environment, students can effectively and efficiently get through community college and be ready for the workforce.

SB 1456, the Student Success Act authored by Senator Alan Lowenthal, contains common sense reforms. Under the bill, ALL students will receive the guidance they need to be successful through required orientation and education plans. In a historic move toward equity, colleges will be required to publicly report progress of all students broken down by race and socio-economic status. And, finally, students will have to maintain satisfactory academic performance in order to be eligible for fee waivers.

NBLC looks forward to monitoring the ongoing implementation to help ensure that the process is equitable, meaningful, and prompt.

Business Coalition is Being Heard on SCS at MTC, ABAG

An Article by Bob Glover, Executive Director, BIA Bay Area
The Sustainable Communities Strategy being crafted by regional regulators to align Bay Area land-use and transportation plans with the region’s state-mandated climate protection targets was in need of a reality check.But two important developments in recent weeks signal the concerns of the region’s broad business community are being heard.On July 19, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, the agencies responsible for the Sustainable Communities Strategy, or SCS, voted to adopt a Business Coalition-backed alternative to be studied along with the proposed SCS during California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the proposal.

Then, on August 17, MTC announced that it would hire a private sector real estate consultant to independently assess the economic feasibility of the proposed SCS—specifically, its principle policy prescription that 80 percent of all future residential construction should be confined to Priority Development Areas, or PDAs. The PDAs, numbering about 200 across the region, are infill and other urbanized sites that have been deemed by local governments as potentially suitable for transit-oriented development. Combined, they account for approximately four percent of the region’s buildable land.

An independent assessment of the practicality and feasibility of directing 80 percent of all future investment into these areas has been a priority of the Business Coalition and was first requested back in May.

To read the rest of the story …

Fighting for CEQA Reform

CEQA Reform has been a key initiative of North Bay Leadership Council. This year, in an effort to achieve meaningful CEQA reform, NBLC has joined a Coalition of like-minded business groups from across the state that are working to do just that. Business surveys have put CEQA reform in the top issues needed to improve the business climate in California. The legislative session closes at the end of August with legislators moving legislation in a mad rush to beat the deadline.  During this mad rush, we remain hopeful about the legislature achieving genuine CEQA reform, focused on fixing the legal abuses of CEQA, including transparency and standing issues, as well as better integrating CEQA with existing environmental and planning laws.   
 
This Coalition has been pushing hard on achieving a solution, and the letter below was sent to every member of the California Assembly and Senate. As this situation progresses, we will keep you abreast of important news around this effort and ask for your help.
 

August 20, 2012

To: Governor Jerry Brown
Senate President Darrell Steinberg
Assembly Speaker John Perez
Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff
Assembly Republican Leader Connie Conway

Re: CEQA Modernization

We have been encouraged by recent comments from the Governor and Legislative leaders expressing your support for some form of CEQA reform. As a coalition of labor, schools, hospitals, clean technology companies, local government and business, we support efforts to modernize CEQA and commend you for taking on this vitally important issue.

We believe it is possible to accomplish responsible, thoughtful CEQA reforms that preserve the original intent of the law – environmental protection – while stamping out certain abuses of the law brought for non-environmental reasons.

We reject the notion promoted by some that any and all CEQA modernization attempts are automatically an attack on the environment. This all-or-nothing posturing is what is preventing California from moving forward with environmental protection policies that foster – instead of inhibit – responsible job creation, economic growth and community renewal that are critical to achieving the dual goals of responsible growth and economic prosperity.

As you evaluate CEQA reforms, we urge you to consider the following principles:

1. Modernize CEQA to Integrate Updated Environmental and Planning Laws

  • When the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted 40 years ago, the wide array of local, state and federal environmental and land use regulations that are now on the books didn’t exist. CEQA was essentially it.
  • In the 40 years since, Congress and the Legislature have adopted more than 120 laws to protect environmental quality in many of the same topical areas required to be independently mitigated under CEQA, including laws like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, GHG emissions reduction standards, SB 375 and more.
  • Despite these stringent environmental laws and local planning requirements, public and private projects throughout the state are commonly challenged under CEQA even when a project meets all other environmental standards of existing laws.
  • Many lawsuits are brought or threatened for non-environmental reasons and often times these lawsuits seek to halt environmentally desirable projects like clean power, infill and transit. CEQA is even working at odds with – instead of in concert with – important environmental laws like SB 375 and AB 32.
  • CEQA should continue to serve as the state environmental law for environmental impacts not regulated by standards set forth in other environmental and planning laws adopted since 1970.
  • However, where a federal, state or local environmental or land use law has been enacted to achieve environmental protection objectives (e.g., air and wetlands protections, etc.), CEQA review documents like EIRs should focus on fostering informed debate (including public notice and comment) by the public and decision makers about how applicable environmental standards reduce project impacts.
  • State agencies, local governments and other lead agencies should continue to retain full authority to reject projects, or to condition project approvals and impose additional mitigation measures, consistent with their full authority under law other than CEQA.

2. Eliminate CEQA Duplication

  • As originally enacted, CEQA did not require further analysis of projects that already complied with CEQA-certified plans such as General Plans. But a 1987 court decision dramatically changed CEQA’s application.
  • We should return CEQA to its original intent and not require duplicative CEQA review for projects that comply with approved plans for which an environmental impact report (EIR) has already been completed – particularly since existing laws also require both plans and projects to comply with our stringent environmental standards.
  • Local governments and other lead agencies should continue to retain full authority to reject projects or to condition project approvals and impose additional mitigation measures, consistent with their full authority under law other than CEQA.

3. Focus CEQA Litigation on Compliance with Environmental and Planning Laws

  • CEQA lawsuits should focus on compliance with CEQA’s procedural and substantive requirements, including adequate notice, adequate disclosure, adequate mitigation of environmental effects not regulated by other environmental or planning law, adequate consideration of alternatives to avoid unmitigated significant adverse impacts.
  • CEQA lawsuits should not be used to challenge adopted environmental standards, or to endlessly re-challenge approved plans by challenging projects that comply with plans.
  • Environmental and other public advocacy efforts to enact environmental protection laws should not be affected by any CEQA reform, and refocusing CEQA on how compliance with standards and plans will reduce impacts can also inform advocacy efforts to revisit standards or plans.
  • Finally, “real” environmental lawsuits – seeking to enforce true environmental objectives – can still be pursued against agencies that fail to make regulatory or permitting decisions in compliance with standards and plans. However, the current system of broad brush CEQA lawsuits that can be filed by any party for any purpose to challenge any or all environmental attributes of projects that comply with standards and plans are an outdated artifact of the “anything goes” environment of 1970, which now hinders both environmental improvement and economic recovery.

California is and can remain a leader in environmental stewardship, while at the same time promoting responsible investments in schools, clean technology, roads, mass transit, hospitals, infill development, housing, businesses and new jobs.

We look forward to working with you on this effort.

North Bay Leadership Council
California Alliance for Jobs
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Bay Area Council
California’s Coalition for Adequate School Housing
California Hospital Association
Transportation California
Southern California Association of Governments
AGC California
Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation
SPUR
CalChamber
Los Angeles County Business Federation
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Valley Industry & Commerce Association
Orange County Business Council
San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
Central California Council
California Building Industry Association
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
California Business Properties Association
Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce
California Retailers Association
California Business Roundtable